The Batman (2022) Fangirl Review
Screenplay by: Matt Reeves, Peter Craig
Released on March 1st, 2022, I have to admit that I took some time to go and see the actual film in theatre - only managing to actually leave the comfort of my house for it on April 9th, 2022, more than a month after its release. Honestly, I feel like I deserve a pat on the back for managing to avoid spoilers of any kind within that period without having a total social media blackout.
As a casual hardcore DC fan, especially heavy on Batman and what is fondly termed as the Batfam - how can I not go and show my support (despite my reservations)? Normally, I’m not one to actually write a review on a film - since I have like-minded friends that can stand my film-holic, comic-holic rants but this time it’s special. Particularly since I have a lot to say and I doubt my Marvel-holic bestie can keep up with this particular rant.
First off - this review will contain spoilers for the movie and is in no way a show of how in-depth I am in the fandom since sadly, I’m not as entrenched in the comic-verse as other hardcore fans. I will not claim to be an expert on the DC-verse as other people who have dedicated their time and money to the fandom but this is simply a rumination from a humble fan who truly loves the franchise.
To begin, let’s start with;
The Premise, Story and Tone
It’s interesting to note that this iteration by Matt Reeves and Peter Craig did its best to be different from other incarnations of the caped crusader. For starters, playing around Batman’s identity as a detective - something we rarely see in existing adaptations. The premise is basically, in layman’s term; a young Batman trying to ground his identity in Gotham amidst its rising corruption and his effort to stop the killings done by a mysterious identity “punishing” Gotham’s elite.
Honestly, from the trailer, fans already know it's going to be The Riddler. But the interesting part is how the movie plays out with the tone being a cross of detective noir, superhero flick and dystopian. The superhero and dystopian part is not surprising considering it is Batman. DC already established Gotham as a dark, dystopian-esque fictional city and even within the comic-verse it is known as one of the darkest metropolises.
The detective noir part is a happy surprise - and it jumps right in with the opening scene. Granted, Reeves probably intended for a more modern take on the genre but the flavour of it is there especially with a first person point of view shot from a pair of binoculars and Ave Maria playing in the background. I have to admit, the first shot really established this iteration as something different.
But it’s not without its flaws. As much fun as a detective noir is, I feel like a running time of two hours and 56 minutes is a bit trying - and this coming from someone who once had to sit through trying classics such as Rashomon, Battleship Potemkin, etc for class. Here’s the thing, I feel that since current film-goers are not as used to this pacing anymore - or expecting to see it in a superhero flick, it can feel a bit draggy.
The story itself is interesting, with its twists and turns ending up with a reveal of the total corruption of Gotham’s elite and administration - including the ugly bits on Thomas Wayne’s history with Carmine Falcone leading up to a total “sinking” of Gotham city thanks to strategically placed bombs. I’m not going to bother with the full summary for the film so instead I’ll put it in a point-form sequence (because I feel a long paragraph for a summary is just something I’m not in the mood for writing).
Opening Act: The murder of Gotham’s mayor, Don Mitchell Jr. with a calling card for Batman addressing the main theme of the plot - “Lies of the Elite”-slash-“Corruption”.
Second Act: Further escalation of murder and acts of terrorism on key players of Gotham’s administration and justice system centered around the corruption following a previous successful drug bust - the Maroni case.
Third Act: The reveal of how far the corruption goes, tracing back to Bruce’s own father, Thomas Wayne. It then moves on to The Riddler’s final act of terrorism, “sinking” the corrupted Gotham city and the murder of the current mayoral candidate Bella Real by his fanatics.
There’s more subplots playing around of course, such as Bruce’s slowly declining drive to protect the city - his helplessness on whether he’s making a change or not, Selina Kyle’s mission to uncover what happens to her roommate Annika and her dark background as Carmine Falcone’s illegitimate child, and many more that ties into the main theme of corruption.
Being a detective noir - or a more modern take on it and a sort of crime flick, I have to admit having The Riddler as the main baddie for this premise is a good choice considering. We know The Riddler is smart enough to pull off an elaborate scheme and his M.O, leaving riddles for Batman to solve is a match-made in heaven for this genre. But there’s just something off, or missing. At least I feel that way.
The story itself is well-thought, so long as you have your mind more set on the whole detective noir thing instead of a heavy superhero flick.
The Characters and Setting
Thinking back, I feel that the missing part is the fact that this film’s setting leans more towards realism and for fans who are more conscious of the Batman franchise, there’s a juxtaposition. It’s hard to reconcile the ‘realistic’ incarnations of characters we know so well - especially for the villains. The backstory, the hierarchy of power, and the motivations of these villains are jarring when you know their other incarnations - particularly within the comic and animated versions.
Take The Riddler for instance. The Riddler we know of is smart and capable of horrendous crimes but there’s an element of whimsy in him that’s noticeably absent in this film. This Riddler, played by Paul Dano, is a great villain. Honestly, if not for that disposition and attachment to The Batman franchise, this would’ve been a damn good crime film to watch. His background and drive in this film basically stems from the utter failure of Thomas Wayne’s Renewal Program to protect his orphanage until it comes to a ruin.
In a typical sociopathic-psychopathic-narcissistic murderer archetype for crime flicks, The Riddler, or Edward Nashton is mostly driven by his need to be known, to be remembered - his background notwithstanding. His attachment to Batman is a juicy bit of fandom Easter egg for me because as we all know, The Riddler is one of a handful of Gotham villains canonically aware of Batman’s identity as Bruce Wayne.
Here, Riddler is portrayed to harbour a certain resentment for Bruce Wayne, “The Orphan of Gotham City” yet he finds a kinship with Batman - who, in this movie stresses his main identity as “Gotham’s Vengeance”. Another beautiful tidbit is the moment of confrontation between Batman and Riddler or Nashton where he acknowledges that the one who stands before him, Batman is the “true-self” with Bruce Wayne being “the mask”.
This nod acknowledges Batman’s core characteristic that many previous incarnations just barely scratch the surface of - Nolan-verse and Burton's being the only ones that actually acknowledged this (as far as I can remember). Other villain characters such as Penguin is sadly, one of the most jarring ones for me. I can see how the character design tries to incorporate Penguin’s main characteristic but honestly, it takes a while for me to connect the dots if not for the characters pointing this out - I blame this on Burton’s Penguin incarnation for increasing this juxtaposition.
This Penguin is more ingrained with the character of a typical second in command, mob-type in a crime flick. Here, he works closely with Carmine Falcone (the head honcho) and while it is fun to see this different version, it just takes a while to get used to. Now, as for Carmine Falcone, I feel that him being the head honcho is enough to illustrate how this character is shown in the film. Albeit his version is more of a seemingly soft-spoken, “honourable” mob boss which always screams as the worst kind when in movies.
I guess, in the whole scheme of things, his reiteration is not as jarring since his character in the comic-verse is quite similar to the one portrayed here. Honestly, it’s rare to see Carmine Falcone being portrayed in live-action (or none, actually as far as I can remember). Him being the centre of corruption and being the conflict-drive for Thomas Wayne’s corruption is a good connector for the whole theme. His being Selina Kyle’s father, well - there’s a splash of uniqueness for Catwoman’s incarnation.
It’s rare to see this version of Selina Kyle’s background which brings us to my very much dislike for this iteration of Catwoman. Nothing against Zoe Kravitz, but this version of Selina Kyle is the most jarring for me. This Selina Kyle is too vulnerable, too much of a victim with none of Catwoman’s core strength in display. It’s as if in an effort to inject more tragedy and realism to her character, I’m being deprived of Catwoman’s empowering nature. Her character suits the plot, no doubt but just— Very unsatisfactory as a female Batman fan.
The nod to the whole Batman-Catwoman wedding in the comic is a nice Easter egg though but here’s the thing. I’m not feeling the chemistry and since my guilty pleasure is cheesy rom-coms, I know what I’m talking about for once. Especially since I groaned at the kissing scene and wanted to facepalm myself. So hard. Romance aside, while her character is somewhat enjoyable, I feel like it’s unnecessary to the overall plot - we can make do without it.
Before you argue that without her, Bruce wouldn’t find the connection to Annika, let’s consider that the movie can go that route even with a side character. Selina Kyle’s character, for a lack of better word is just to “pretty up” the film. The only takeaway from this character that I can confidently say is highlighting how messed-up Gotham is and Batman’s dedication to a “seemingly” hopeless cause (which we can get from other characters just as easily). Sure, if we dive deeper there might be more beyond the surface but I just can’t. What can I say? Selina Kyle is my favourite femme fatale in the fandom so my bar is set high.
Now, for the main character, Bruce Wayne, The Batman himself. I have to admit, I was a bit apprehensive of Robert Pattinson’s portrayal but since I’ve felt this way as far back as post Michael Keaton’s Batman, I take it with a grain of salt. I may be a bit biased since I’m speaking of the titular character but I’ve always felt each portrayal of Batman so far brings their own distinctive flavour and I can’t really say it’s too bad, too blasphemous, etc.
Pattinson’s Batman is somber and young, in a way we haven’t really seen just yet and I have to say, they basically nailed their intended portrayal here. This version of Bruce is just not sure enough of where he stands a Batman, his drive being more superficial which is appropriate considering how old he is at this moment in time. In this Batman, we see his brilliance, but we still see how he’s still defining his identity. It’s refreshing since we really don’t see much of this version of Batman.
Keaton’s version is already more seasoned, so does Clooney and Affleck. While Bale’s version has that gradual growth, there’s a competency there that Pattinson’s Batman still lacks. Like I said, he’s so young here. Other fans might want a more seasoned version of Batman, understandably but I feel like this version kind of slaps you in the face with its possibility to grow.
For instance, I can’t help but think of the possibility of Pattinson’s Batman encountering Dick Grayson in future films (if any) especially since it is shown to us in the film how affected Bruce was seeing Mitchell’s son (the dead mayor) being the person who discovered his father’s dead body. The parallels are just too good and I just want to shake Hollywood to ask them to give us the Dynamic Duo. I might need to blame a couple of YouTube binges on the lack of Robin in films and a couple of Nightwing deep dives before watching this.
I don’t really have a lot of complaints when it comes to the characterisation of this Batman - particularly because it works with what this film is going for. Like I said, I feel like if there is any complaint on this Batman, it’s the absence of the usual edge, that competency we see in a more aged version of the caped crusader.
Though Pattinson’s dialogue as Batman here is a bit cheesy in certain parts like; “I am vengeance.” I can still remember my shoulders hunching up from the cringe. Cheesy dialogues aside, I kind of like the dynamic of Bruce and Alfred in here. There’s a few predictable lines and relationship growth there but I’m always a sucker for a good ‘ol Bruce and Alfred bonding moments.
Talking about Alfred, I like how this version shows a more proactive version of Alfred, banking on his background as super spy extraordinaire. It’s rare. We mostly see him being a caring, nurturing, supportive father-figure for Bruce and rarely do we see him being somewhat hands on in the whole Batman operations. It’s a nice change and I do so love BAMF Alfred moments.
Another supporting character I want to touch on is of course, Commissioner Gordon - except he’s not commissioner yet here. At its core, Gordon’s core characteristics are there just with a touch of roughness you normally see when a person of colour plays the role of a cop. I don’t mean to offend anyone (hardly my place seeing I’m Asian and we all know how that goes as far as Hollywood portrayals went) but it’s just another thing that I feel is “typical”.
I kind of prefer Oldman’s movie-verse James Gordon, as a whole - I feel like it’s the closest to comic-verse though we all know Gordon can be a badass. Also, just. What is it with Hollywood assigning people of colour to characters known to be redheads? Sure, Commissioner Gordon’s not a redhead but we all know Babs is. And just. Why? I’m all about diversity in casting but it’s a known pattern now. And it just baffles me.
Although I’d like to delve deeper on the cinematic aspect of things, I think that’s best reserved for when the film finished airing in cinemas and I can watch it legally on streaming platforms. Then, we can go crazy on the direction, the acting, the plot, the cinematography, the audio and other aspects that make up a film. I mean, I’m already pushing 3000 words here just ranting about the film in conjunction with fan-based opinion.
Now, whether or not this movie is “good” and worth watching, I’d say go for it. Just, maybe don’t enter while being so attached to the Batman franchise as whole? Especially the comic-verse. I mean, this film is an enjoyable superhero-noir - which I find is an actual term. Sheesh, I’m so out of touch with things - academically - after my studies. Afterall, it is mentioned that it’s separate from the DCEU so just enjoy it as a standalone. It’s a very refreshing take.
